Sunscreen Mist Holdings v. Snappyscreen: 1,934-Day Infringement Dispute Ends with Prejudice
Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLC asserted US Patent 6,918,897 against Snappyscreen and two hotel operator co-defendants, alleging infringement by the SNAPPY automated spray-on sunscreen machine. After more than five years of litigation in New York’s Eastern District, all parties stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice — each side bearing its own costs.
Five Years of Sunscreen Patent Litigation Ends in Bilateral Stand-Down
Filed on February 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, this action pitted Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLC — the holder of US Patent 6,918,897 — against Snappyscreen, Inc. and two hospitality co-defendants: Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Company, Inc. and HIT Portfolio I. Misc TRS, LLC. The core allegation was infringement of the ‘897 patent by the SNAPPY automated spray-on sunscreen dispensing system deployed at hotel and resort locations.
The case closed on May 30, 2024, via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes: Sunscreen Mist Holdings is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against these defendants. Critically, neither side was awarded costs or attorneys’ fees, suggesting the parties reached a mutual resolution — whether through settlement or exhaustion — without a monetary judgment entering the record.
The 1,934-day duration is notably long for a case that resolved without a trial verdict, suggesting sustained discovery, motion practice, or protracted negotiation. The involvement of hotel operator defendants alongside the device manufacturer Snappyscreen is consistent with a broad enforcement strategy targeting the commercial deployment chain. The specific terms of any underlying agreement, if one exists, remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1934 days
1,934 days litigated — over 5 years, well above median patent case duration
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a) dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a) carries the same legal force as a judgment on the merits. Sunscreen Mist Holdings cannot refile these patent claims against Snappyscreen or the hotel co-defendants in any court. The ‘with prejudice’ designation distinguishes this from a tactical pause — it is a permanent end to these specific claims.
Claim preclusion appliesPatent holder surrenders right to re-litigate these claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Sunscreen Mist Holdings permanently relinquished its ability to assert US6918897B2 against these defendants for past and ongoing infringement. While the patent may remain enforceable against third parties, this resolution forecloses any further recovery from Snappyscreen and the named hotel operators. The no-costs provision means no monetary award was publicly recorded.
No damages awarded on recordSnappyscreen and hotel operators secured a clean exit
For Snappyscreen and its hospitality co-defendants, a with-prejudice dismissal provides durable protection: the same plaintiff cannot re-assert the same patent claims in future litigation. The mutual cost-bearing provision also avoids the reputational and financial exposure of a fee-shifting award. Whether this reflects a license, settlement payment, or pure litigation fatigue is not apparent from the public record.
Permanent claim bar securedAutomated sunscreen tech sector gains partial clarity — not full resolution
US6918897B2 has not been invalidated and may still be asserted against other operators or competitors deploying spray sunscreen technology. Businesses using similar automated dispensing systems — particularly in hospitality, recreation, and theme parks — should note that the ‘897 patent remains a live enforcement risk. This case’s resolution does not establish any invalidity or non-infringement precedent that third parties can rely upon.
Patent remains enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLC | Company | Patent holding company — holder of US6918897B2 covering automated sunscreen spray systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Snappyscreen | Individual | Snappyscreen Inc. — maker of SNAPPY automated spray-on sunscreen dispensing machinesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Company, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | HIT Portfolio I. Misc TRS, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Ryan Kravis | Attorney | Counsel for Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ari Berris | Attorney | Counsel for Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jan Jeffrey Rubinstein | Attorney | Counsel for Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John VanOphem | Attorney | Counsel for Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Wurgaft | Attorney | Counsel for Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kiernan Trebach | Law Firm | Representing Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kravis & Associates, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Berris Law Firm, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Rubinstein Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vanophem IP Law PLC | Law Firm | Representing Sunscreen Mist Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alex V. Chachkes | Attorney | Counsel for SnappyscreenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra D. Valenti | Attorney | Counsel for SnappyscreenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ira Jay Levy | Attorney | Counsel for SnappyscreenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ury Fischer | Attorney | Counsel for SnappyscreenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Procter LLP | Law Firm | Representing SnappyscreenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lott & Fischer PL | Law Firm | Representing SnappyscreenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Setty Chachkes PLLC | Law Firm | Representing SnappyscreenSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation references FRCP 41(a) and specifies dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — meaning the court’s approval converts the joint request into a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. The phrase ‘each party to bear its own costs and fees’ is legally significant: it precludes any post-dismissal motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 between these parties. No substantive merits finding — on infringement, validity, or claim scope — was made by the court, leaving the ‘897 patent’s legal status unchanged as to third parties.
US6918897B2 — Automated Spray-On Sunscreen Dispensing System
US Patent 6,918,897 (application number US10/210,652) covers technology relating to automated spray-on sunscreen dispensing. The patent issued under the B2 designation, indicating it was granted after publication with at least one amendment during prosecution. The application number series places its filing in the early 2000s, meaning the patent had been commercially relevant for well over a decade before this litigation commenced in 2019. The technology sits at the intersection of consumer health, automated dispensing mechanics, and UV-protection delivery systems.
The commercial significance of US6918897B2 lies in its application to automated, self-service sunscreen application systems increasingly deployed at hotels, resorts, water parks, and sports venues. As demand for convenient UV protection in high-traffic outdoor environments has grown, the addressable market for SNAPPY-type devices has expanded — making the ‘897 patent a strategically valuable enforcement asset. Competitors entering this space, or hospitality operators procuring such systems, should treat this patent as a key reference point in any freedom-to-operate assessment.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US6918897B2?
Any business developing, manufacturing, importing, or deploying automated spray-on sunscreen dispensing equipment in the United States should treat US6918897B2 as a primary reference. The patent was actively asserted in federal court for over five years, and no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued — meaning it retains full presumptive validity. Hotel operators, resort chains, theme parks, and beach-venue operators procuring third-party sunscreen machines face direct infringement exposure under the deployment-chain theory demonstrated in this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US6918897B2 against your product architecture, identify file-history prosecution disclaimers that narrow claim coverage, and surface relevant prior art that could support an IPR or ex parte reexamination strategy. Eureka also flags related family members and continuation applications that may extend coverage beyond the ‘897 patent’s expiry. Running this analysis before commercial deployment is significantly less costly than defending a multi-defendant infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6918897B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar automated dispensing and consumer-health device patent cases
Cases involving automated consumer-health dispensing patents in E.D.N.Y. and comparable district courts — relevant to teams monitoring the spray-sunscreen and self-service device IP landscape.
What this case signals for the automated dispensing IP landscape
A five-year dispute ending in mutual dismissal raises pointed questions about enforcement economics and patent scope in the consumer-health device sector.
Hotel operators face direct infringement exposure in device deployment chains
The naming of Loews Miami Beach and HIT Portfolio as co-defendants signals that patent holders in the automated dispensing space are willing to pursue the entire commercial deployment chain — not just device manufacturers. Hospitality and recreation operators should assess whether vendor indemnification clauses cover patent infringement exposure.
With-prejudice exits after 5+ years may signal undisclosed settlement terms
Cases lasting nearly 1,934 days that resolve via mutual dismissal with each party bearing own costs are consistent with confidential settlement agreements where no monetary judgment is intended to enter the public record. IP teams should treat this pattern as a potential licensing resolution, not necessarily a litigation win for either side.
Sunscreen v Snappyscreen — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 30, 2024, via a stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a). Each party agreed to bear its own costs and fees. No damages, injunction, or merits ruling was issued by the court. The dismissal permanently bars Sunscreen Mist Holdings from reasserting the same patent claims against these defendants.
Sunscreen Mist Holdings asserted US Patent 6,918,897 (US6918897B2, application no. US10/210,652) against Snappyscreen and its hotel operator co-defendants. The patent covers automated spray-on sunscreen dispensing technology and was asserted in connection with the SNAPPY self-service sunscreen machine.
The inclusion of hotel operator defendants Loews Miami Beach Hotel Operating Company and HIT Portfolio I. Misc TRS, LLC is consistent with a deployment-chain enforcement strategy, under which patent holders assert infringement not only against device manufacturers but also against commercial entities that use or operate the allegedly infringing technology on their premises. This is a recognised approach in patent enforcement targeting hospitality and venue-based technology deployments.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a) is a procedural termination, not a merits ruling on patent validity or infringement. US6918897B2 retains its presumptive validity and may still be asserted against third parties who were not parties to this case. No invalidity finding or non-infringement determination was entered by the court.
The mutual cost-bearing provision means neither side sought or obtained an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or other fee-shifting mechanisms. In patent cases, fee awards require a finding that the case is ‘exceptional.’ The bilateral no-costs stipulation effectively waives any post-dismissal fee motion between these parties and is consistent with either a negotiated resolution or a mutual decision to end litigation without further adversarial proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.